Global Competency Standards for Project Management

Background

Since the early 1990s performance based competency standards have been developed as part of national
qualifications frameworks in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and more recently, South Africa.
These nationally endorsed standards share a similar format.

Performance based competency standards for project management have been developed in the United Kingdom
for both Project Controls (OSCEng 19961, OSCEng 19992) and Project Management (OSCEng 19973; CISC
19974; MCI 19975) and in Australia (AIPM (Sponsor) 1996)6 for Project Management. Competency standards
for Project Management and Project Controls are currently being developed in South Africa (South African
Qualifications Authority). The New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) has expressed interest in project
management standards and there is interest in development of European Vocational Qualifications (EVQs).
Although Japan does not have a performance based competency standards qualifications framework, the project
management community has expressed considerable interest in the competency standards approach as have those
in other countries, including India and China. The Project Management Institute has recently produced an
exposure draft of a Project Manager Competency Development Framework that includes performance
competencies similar in format to the performance based competency standards of Australia, UK, New Zealand
and South Africa.

Both the Australian standards and the most widely used UK standards for both project management and project
controls (OSCEng 1996, OSCEng 1997) are currently due for review.

The concurrent need for review of the UK and Australian Competency Standards for Project Management,
current development of South African standards, interest in development of New Zealand and European
standards and emergent initiatives of the Project Management Institute provide an ideal opportunity for a global
review and development process that would ensure compatibility between nationally endorsed standards. This
would provide a basis for transferability of qualifications, global recognition and a rational framework for
use in an increasingly global workplace. It would meet the expressed needs of industry and practitioners.

Support by industry, the profession and practitioners

In May 2000, representatives of
- industry (including NASA, CISCO, Raytheon, ABB, World Bank, Rolls Royce),
- project management and cost engineering professional associations (IPMA, APM, AIPM, Danish PM
Association, PMA India, PMI South Africa, ICEC, ACostE, PM Research Committee of China, Japan PM
Forum)
- educational institutions (Lille Business School, Cranfield School of Management, UTS)
- qualifications organisations (ECITB, PM Standards Generating Body of South Africa)
attended a meeting in London at which the importance of global standards was confirmed and it was agreed to
proceed with development of global competency standards for project management.

1
OSCEng (1996) OSCEng Level 4. NVQ/SVQ in Project Controls. Occupational Standards Council for Engineering
2
OSCEng (1999) OSCEng Level 3. NVQ/SVQ in Project Controls. Occupational Standards Council for Engineering
3
OSCEng (1997) OSCEng Levels 4 and 5: NVQ/SVQ in (generic) Project Management. Occupational Standards Council for Engineering.
4
CISC (1997) Raising standards: Construction Project Management: NVQ/SVQ Level 5. London: CISC (The Construction Industry Standing
Conference).
5
MCI (1997) Manage Projects: Management Standards - Key Role G, London: Management Charter Initiative.

6
AIPM (Sponsor) (1996) National Competency Standards for Project Management. Australian Institute of Project Management.
Further meetings were held in September, November, and December 2000 and in January, March and June 2001.
Considerable support for the project has been expressed by the United Nations which has a particular interest in
development of project management competence within a global framework.

In Australia, AIPM was instrumental in gaining Government and industry support for development of the
Australian National Competency Standards for Project Management. The AIPM professional registration
process is aligned to the three levels of these standards (Level 4 (QPP); Level 5 (RegPM) and Level 6 (MPD)).
The AIPM is committed to support for review of the Australian National Standards for Project Management as
part of a globally agreed competency standards framework.

Experience in Australia demonstrates that alignment of professional project management registration /

certification with Government endorsed qualification frameworks enhances the take-up of the standards.

There is a clear need, emanating from industry, for a globally applicable, work based PM assessment and
recognition process. Development of global competency standards for project management, through the joint
initiative of governments and project management professional associations provides an opportunity to respond
directly to the expressed needs of industry, to enhance the profile and effectiveness of project management
throughout the community, both global and local, to increase support for national PM associations and to
enhance the value and recognition of the competency standards approach.

The outcome will be a globally accepted framework of competency standards for project management and
project controls that will form the basis for a transferable, work-based project management certification /
registration process, aligned directly to the standards and qualification frameworks of UK, Australia and other
governments.

The proposed process and timeline is as follows.

Plan of Action
The aim of this initiative is development of globally aligned, nationally supported performance based
competency standards for project management that are of real benefit to both national and global practitioners
and industry. To achieve this, the following process is proposed:

- Formal engagement of Australian, UK, South African and New Zealand competency standards /
qualifications bodies (MOU)
- Formal engagement of project management and associated professional associations (MOU)
- Cooperation between national standards review and generation initiatives to ensure global alignment
- Global participation by PM practitioners and industry in an inclusive consultation process to ensure genuine
global agreement and support for outcomes (Global Steering Committee)

Funding for review of standards in both the UK (from QCA through ECITB) and Australia (from ANTA through
BSTA) is imminent. Funding for ECITB was approved in May 2001. BSTA is currently scoping the project and
expects to have funding for commencement in late 2001 / early 2002. Both organisations are aiming to release
draft standards in late 2002. Funding for the review process will essentially provide for engagement of standards
writers, and the funding bodies (QCA (UK) and ANTA (Australia)) are strongly focused on providing value at a
national level. However, given the nature of the project management profession and the wider imperatives of
globalisation, provision of value to local industry is heavily dependent upon providing global relevance and
alignment.

The challenge, therefore, is to ensure that funding for local standards development is utilised to produce globally
aligned performance based competency standards for project management. It is proposed to do this through an
agreement (MOU) between national standards / qualifications bodies (UK, Australia, RSA, NZ) to conduct their
standards review and generation processes cooperatively. This would be supported by a similar agreement
(MOU) between project management and related professional associations. These MOUs have already been
signed by a number of parties and are in circulation with signing expected to be complete by late 2001.
Local / national standards review and generation processes would be conducted according to the specific national
requirements. Coordination and cooperation, to ensure relevance to industry, globally, would be facilitated
through a Global Steering Committee, comprising representatives of
- national standards / qualifications bodies (UK, Australia, RSA, NZ)
- related national project management professional associations (APM, AIPM, PMISA, PMINZ),
- international project management (PMI, IPMA) and cost engineering (ICEC) professional associations plus
- a small number of industry representatives (3 to 4) to ensure alignment of the process with global industry
needs.

The initial proposal is for UK, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand to be represented on the Global Steering
Committee as these are the only countries that currently have performance based competency standards /
qualifications frameworks. However, other countries interested in aligning their local standards to a global
framework, either through government or professional bodies, would be encouraged to participate by instituting
similar local processes and contributing through the Global Steering Committee and Reference Groups. The
PMIs Project Manager Competency Development Framework provides a good basis for PMI participation. The
representatives of national standards / qualifications bodies and PM professional associations on the Global
Steering Committee will be expected to be members and therefore representatives of local standards review and
generation Steering / Technical Committees. This is intended to provide the mechanism for coordination
between local and global initiatives.

Global Reference Groups would have the same function as Local Reference Groups. They provide a wider
forum for participation in the standards review and generation process by industry representatives and other
interested parties than is possible though the Steering Committees.

Lynn Crawford
8 November 2001

Attachments
Appendix 1: Draft Programme
Appendix 2: Draft organisation chart
APPENDIX 1: DRAFT PROGRAMME

Proposed date Activity

December 2001 Secure MOU between Governments Currently in
- Circulate MOU circulation
- Initiate discussions with ECITB, BSTA and
counterparts in RSA and NZ

November 2001 Secure MOU between PM and related In circulation

professional associations
- Circulate MOU
- Initiate discussions with PM and related
professional associations

December 2001 Background research Funding through

- Prepare background material on existing ECITB and BSTA
standards, resources, etc. (together and / or
- Prepare matrix of existing standards separately)
- Compare Australian, UK, SA and NZ As no funding had
standards / qualifications frameworks been approved, the PM
Research Unit at UTS
has commenced work
on this.
December 2001 Establish Reference Groups
Recommend and secure support for membership
of:
- Global Steering Committee
- Global Reference Group
- Local Steering / Technical Committees
- Local Reference Groups
(See proposed organisation structure attached as
Appendix 2)
June ? (UK) / Writing of standards Standards writers
December - Consultants engaged to write standards, funded (separately) by
(Australia) 2001 to working cooperatively with one another and ECITB (UK) and BST
mid 2002 interactively with Steering Committees and (Australia) plus any
Reference Groups; preparing material; additional
incorporating feedback etc; circulating papers. contributions
- Ideally, in accordance with the proposed
MOU, standards writers funded through both
ECITB (UK) and BSTA (Australia) will work
cooperatively. There is potential for
advantages to be achieved through sharing of
workload.

January / February First Meeting of Global Steering Committee Venue offered by

2002 Meeting to be held in London. OSCEng. London (ref
- Review matrix of standards Tim Feest)
- Review process for global alignment
- Agree program
Proposed date Activity
January / February First Reference Group Meetings
2002 Review matrix of standards
- Global Reference Group
- Local Reference Groups (Australia, NZ, SA,
UK, Other)

May 2002 Second Meeting of Global Steering Committee

Meeting to be held in London possibly supported
by video conference facilities.
- Review draft standards
- Review process

May 2002 Second Reference Group Meetings

Review draft standards
- Global Reference Group
- Local Reference Groups (Australia, NZ, SA,
UK. Other)

Late 2001 to July Ongoing review process

2002 Ongoing consultation between Steering
Committees, Reference Groups and Standards
Writers in the development of the standards.

July 2002 Third Meeting of Global Steering Committee

Meeting to be held London possibly supported by
video conference facilities.
- Review and finalise draft standards
- Release draft standards for wider input (web)

July 2002 Third Reference Group Meetings

- Global Reference Group
- Local Reference Groups (Australia, NZ, SA,
UK, Other)

July 2002 to Feedback from wider audience on standards

October 2002 (Exposure Draft)

October / Final Meeting of Global Steering Committee

November 2002 Meeting to be held London possibly supported by
video conference facilities.
- Review feedback and finalise standards /
global framework
- Release final standards / global framework
and publish (web)
- Agree process for ongoing global review

October/ Final Reference Group Meetings

November 2002 - Global Reference Group
- Local Reference Groups (Australia, NZ, SA,
UK, Other)
December 2002 Release of standards / global framework (web)
APPENDIX 2: DRAFT ORGANISATION CHART

Government
Representatives: Global Steering Committee
Australia, NZ, RSA, UK
Professional
Association
Representatives:
APM, AIPM, PMISA, PMINZ,
PMI, IPMA,
ACostE, AIQS
ICEC
Local
Industry Representatives : Steering
UN/World Bank, NASA, Ericsson Local Reference
(Technical) Group
Committee
(Australia)
Government
Representatives: (1 per
country) Global Reference Local
Professional Association
Representatives: (1 per Group (s)* Steering Local Reference
Country / region / int. assn.)
Industry Representatives : Committee Group
including representatives of
various (NZ)
- industry sectors (eg IT,
construction, mining, etc)
- regions
- organisation size and
Local
perspective (eg consultants, Steering Local Reference
trainers, suppliers,
contractors etc) Committee Group
- educational institutions
etc
(South Africa)

Local
Steering Local Reference
Committee Group
(UK)

*Global Reference Group (s) Local

- there may be more than one. Ideally they will
be convened and meetings held to take Steering Local Reference
advantage of coming together of industry Committee(s) Group
representatives (practitioners) eg at professional (others eg Japan)
conferences